to idonno, Thesh wrote:My point is that you aren't even making any specific arguments against what I am proposing, you are arguing against the idea that the problem can be solved.
What you are proposing isn't a solution, it is a vision. And we aren't arguing the problem can't be solved, we're arguing that that
isn't a solution.
to me, Thesh wrote:because your thought process is: [1)... 2)...]
3) Dismiss literally everything said because it isn't a perfect solution to every problem
No, dismiss quoted thing said because it isn't a solution, or it's a solution to a different problem than the one raised. Or it causes bigger problems. To wit:
solving the advertising model of the internet, Thesh wrote:Ban advertising. What good comes out of it?
Assuming you're serious:
This solution is too easily gamed ("who decides what counts as advertising?") and interferes with the First Amendment (even commercial speech is, and should be, protected). If this were a viable option, it would be a far more
viable option for robocalls. Yet despite all the... er... calls to ban robocalls, it ain't happening either, and that's a much stronger case.
Assuming you're being flip:
Thesh wrote:You boiled the entire problem down to human nature, which is to say that you believe it's unsolvable.
No. Saying a problem has its roots in human nature means that to solve it, you need to consider human nature. Your solution has to be robust against it. "Imagine a solution" isn't a solution.
Thesh wrote:Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? [fallacy of single cause]
...which is "a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient
I claim that the issue (bad info spreading faster and wider than good info) is not
caused by "only jointly sufficient causes". It's always been a problem, though it's been amplified by the strong connectedness of communications today, which is primarily driven by social networks, which are primarily driven by the desire (on the part of individuals) to be connected, and the desire (on the part of the platforms) for analysing our vulnerabilities, to be then monetized. Which leads to the clickbait model, and the truism "if you're not the customer, you're the product".
Now, if we were paying for access, there'd be less temptation on the part of corporations to try to datamine us. Enough less? Maybe. Dunno. Money is a powerful motivator (which is why capitalism works as an engine). But ego is also a powerful motivator. This forum, while free, isn't monetized (TMBK) to the point where Randall wants us to "stay engaged". I suspect he pretty much ignores the fora, and he's even taken it off the menu. I think (though I have not researched it carefully) that discussion here is at a higher level than Twitter or Youtube.
It also attracts a different kind of person, and is a platform with little influence. Randall has influence, but we on his platform don't. So, these fora are not targeted by bad actors the way Youtube is.
So, does this "solve the problem by creating an environment where bad information can be called out before it becomes the narrative."? Maybe. If we go with this, the next thing is to figure out how to make people (platform creators and platform participants) want
to do this. We'd need to figure out how to get people off of facebook, and on to our new thing.
But none of this was your proposal. You gave a vision, but how to get there was not in anything you said.